"Negative Reactions Mystify Electronic Cigarette Owners" - Please read!

[Br/eye\an]

Thank you very much for the time and effort to put that fabulous piece of writing together, Kristin. I also found myself cured of lurking after reading it.

I picked up my 510 a couple weeks ago and haven't looked back since. I have been spreading the gospel to everyone who will listen to me for 15 minutes. Now I point them at this article as well.

Awesome work!


-Br/eye\an

[kristin]

Originally Posted by KickASH

Kristin - Well done once again. Could you post the link to your blog or wherever this originally appeared? Would like a link to forward.

Thanks!

Thank you all for the positive feedback!

You can find the original articles here:
Kristin Noll-Marsh's Contributor Profile - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

I also post them on my blog:
Wisconsin Vaporizers Blog

Originally Posted by SmokeyJoe

Masterful, Kristin.

One suggestion (and I'm sure you know this stuff already), but there is some suggestion that the addiction to nicotine in tobacco is to some degree or other accentuated by a "coupling" effect with other chemicals.

I'll try to find the original research.

Secondly, there's the route of action. Mucous membrane versus alveoli gas exchange. Do we have any more info as to whether this has been studied?

SJ

Sounds like material for a future article, SJ!

Originally Posted by LaceyUnderall

This is by far, my favorite article from Kristin yet. Wow. Props Kristin. Just fantastic.

Thanks Lacey!

[kinabaloo]

Kristin (et al) -

Originally Posted by SmokeyJoe
Masterful, Kristin.

One suggestion (and I'm sure you know this stuff already), but there is some suggestion that the addiction to nicotine in tobacco is to some degree or other accentuated by a "coupling" effect with other chemicals.

I'll try to find the original research.

SJ
Sounds like material for a future article, SJ!

~~~

I am a little bit concerned about how such an article would come across and feel it might be detrimental to our interests.

In short, the effect of nicotine is bolstered by other alkoloids in tobacco to not only boost the effect, but create an additional relaxation mode, whereas nicotine alone tends to be just stimulating. It is this combination that makes smoking (and potentially e-liquids too) so 'effective' (but also more 'addictive').

If the article says these facts, it could well lead to e-liquid being prohibited from being anything other than nicotine only. But depriving smokers the most effective reduced harm alternative would be a public health disaster.

We are so close to an e-liquid that solves the 'something missing' that causes some to return to analogs. It is still a highly purified extract that leaves behind nearly all the harmful constituents of tobacco, but one that will work for more people. Better still, early tests show that because it is more satisfying, people actually consume less. So it really is a healthier option.

But some detractors would get stuck on the 'addictive' angle, which actually is not that important given that vaping is barely harmful at all.

~~

These other alkaloids have MAOI activity (are MAO inhibitors); MAO enzymes sweep up dopamine while MAOIs inhibit that sweeping up; one of the many balanced processes in the body. Nicotine plus MAOIs allow a temporary boost of dopamine to a level that switches on a calming, sense of well being, so that one can feel both alert yet relaxed. This is an accurate mini description, though of course, rather simplified.

[Stubby]

Hello Kin: certainly have followed your work on whole tobacco alkaloids closely, very interesting indeed. I'm the kid sitting in the corner with the dunce cap on during chemistry class, but I have been able to follow it.

I'm getting curios as to what Dr. Michael Siegel's response will be to WTA. He has been a friend of e-cigs but he really hasn't been a friend of reduced harm in all it's forms. Siegel has in the past made irrational and exaggerated statements about the dangers of oral tobacco. Bill Godshall has been openly critical of him on this point. It would be interesting to know his views on WTA. Is he truly an advocate of reduced harm or just a slightly liberal anti-tobacco fanatic?

Kristin: I would drop the whole thing about the survey. Many of us couldn't even vote on that one because there was no category for us. That survey is about as far away from a scientific method as you can get.

[Kent C]

Originally Posted by Stubby

That survey is about as far away from a scientific method as you can get.

Ah, but consensus trumps science these days. Haven't you heard? It's how you feel about it, that really counts, not what is. What are you some kind of nut? ;-)

[Canute]

Great job! I joined Digg just so I could Digg it!

1 1/2 packs a day for 24 years switched to vaping no problem (posting that fact everywhere as I would imagine media personnel, FDA or anyone wanting info will troll these forums)

[kristin]

Originally Posted by Stubby

Kristin: I would drop the whole thing about the survey. Many of us couldn't even vote on that one because there was no category for us. That survey is about as far away from a scientific method as you can get.

The one about ECF owners that quit? True. I just meant it to be anecdotal, not scientific. I never really consider surveys scientific anyhow - too many variables and outright fibbing! I didn't mean to imply it was scientific - one reason why I made sure to acknowledge that it was an internet forum survey - very informal. Too late, unfortunately, to change it - it's already been published.

Hopefully, we'll have formal studies to refer to in the near future!

[Canute]

Linked on my facebook account as well along with a few news videos, a plea to link to all the smokers my friends know and an invitation to let anyone who is interested to come try mine!

[Canute]

Dear Sir,

I am writing the following letter as a plea to prevent the banning of electronic cigarettes. After twenty four years of smoking one and half packs a day I have found what can only be described as a miracle in these devices. I have been using my personal vaporizer in lieu of regular cigarettes now for two weeks and found switching over to them as easy as switching brands. Prior to doing so I have done exhaustive research into their chemical composition in comparison to regular cigarettes and absolutely can not understand why the FDA would not be promoting these vehemently in order to assist the millions of Americans addicted to nicotine.

I would not for one single moment claim to believe that electronic cigarettes are healthy for you, however it seems to be common sense that they are clearly far better than standard cigarettes. If the FDA can provide scientific evidence showing that electronic cigarettes are more dangerous than standard cigarettes, then by all means continue with the ban. However, if they are shown to be equally as unhealthy, or less, then the FDA has a responsibility to millions of addicted Americans to support them in earnest. The fact is that even if they are equally harmful the benefits posed by the lack of fire danger, second hand smoke (both in terms of health and annoyance to non-smokers) and litter make them an invaluable aid.

After exhaustively attempting to researching the chemicals actually present in standard cigarettes it became quickly obvious to me that there were so many that researching them all became ludicrous. Though I do not have a P.H.D. in chemistry common sense dictates that the limited ingredients found in the typical e-liquids used in personal vaporizers could not possibly approach the harmful levels found in cigarettes.

I fully understand that great political pressure must be weighing upon the FDA from pharmaceutical companies marketing smoking cessation products as well as from the interests of tobacco manufacturers. I ask that the FDA understand the benefits posed by these devices and stand on the side of the citizens on this one.

The FDA mission statement begins with "The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health". If this is in fact the case then I would ask two simple questions to every person within the FDA with the required education to answer. I went from one and a half packs of Marlboro lights per day to puffing on a personal vaporizer filled with 16mg nicotine fluid. I have tried for ten years or more off and on to quit without success. Should I put this device down and return to my standard cigarettes? Will the FDA be confident enough that their answer is not based in financial special interests as to accept liability for the recommendation they provide?

Sincerely,

[Up In Vapor]

Nice letter Canute...well said!